The US formula for
China By Larry Wortzel and
Devin T Stewart
US Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld during his visit to China last
month underscored the importance of openness,
transparency and freedom in East Asia. During the
same week, China released a white paper that said
the country was a democracy - a socialist one.
This claim is not new, however. After all, Chapter
1, Article 1 of the Chinese constitution declares
that China is a "people's democratic
dictatorship".
Semantics aside, why does
the US hope to promote at least the constituent
elements of civil society, including freedom of
speech, freedom of association, transparency and
accountability?
The spread of civil
society in East Asia over the past several
years has coincided with
stability in the security and economic realms. In
line with this trend, greater transparency would
help reduce the fear of China posing a near-term
military threat, ensure that China contributes to
the health of the global economy and clarify its
long-term ambitions.
At present, it is
unclear what China's intentions are, and therefore
what its future role will be in East Asia. "To
assess China's intent, analysis of official
Chinese strategy documents and white papers must
be augmented by examination of what China has
accomplished in recent years and is attempting to
accomplish in the future," wrote the authors of
the Pentagon's 2005 annual report to Congress on
Chinese military power. The very opacity of
Chinese society can exaggerate the sense of threat
because uncertainty creates fear.
The
current Chinese emphasis on a "peaceful rise" does
not satisfy those who are concerned about its
military growth. Instead, those concerned about
China's future look to its incursions into Japan's
territorial waters, its extensive territorial
claims in the South China Sea and its rapid
military expansion. These moves are at odds with a
peaceful rise. They raise legitimate scrutiny of
China's motives.
Related to transparency,
greater Chinese freedom of speech would reduce
suspicion of China's intentions among its
neighbors and would better inform Chinese citizens
of political developments inside East Asian
countries. Of all people, the Chinese should know
that the wisdom of a thousand flowers blooming is
superior to that of a trickle of information.
Plurality and open debate leads to healthier
markets as well as sounder public policy. Even
such problems as the secretive banking system and
corporate governance would be addressed by more
transparency and the rule of law.
Freedom
of association and other labor rights help level
the playing field among trading partners and
reduce the possibility that lower standards will
be exploited - known as "social dumping" - at the
expense of the environment and welfare of workers
in both trading nations. When the citizens of
trading partners possess the right of collective
bargaining and the right to join labor unions, it
protects the welfare of workers as well as the
health of the trading system, as claims for
protectionism are deflated.
Economic
accountability and transparency would reduce the
threat of economic surprises that could create
shocks to the global economic system. When the
policymaking process is transparent, policymakers
have a greater incentive to make good policies,
and this virtuous cycle contributes to greater
confidence in a government's ability to manage its
economy.
A China that is strong and
prosperous would be more harmonious with the
US-led system and its institutions if Chinese
civil society were able to flourish. The potential
problem with China boils down to alignment and
ideology. A classical international relations
balance of power assessment of a rising China is
appropriate. The future challenge of China is not
its military and economic power, per se, but what
many states throughout history have done with
those assets: balance against perceived rivals.
An undesirable scenario from Washington's
perspective is one in which China continues to woo
states, such as Myanmar, or continues to do
business with states, such as Iran, that are
perceived as hostile to American values and tries
to sway those that are on the fence, such as South
Korea.
The Congressional-Executive
Commission on China 2005 report found no
improvement in China's human-rights conditions in
the past year. The report notes that while China
did make progress in judicial and criminal justice
reform, the Chinese government "continues to use
administrative procedures and vaguely worded
criminal laws to detain Chinese citizens
arbitrarily for exercising their rights to freedom
of religion, speech and assembly".
A world
is possible in which states follow China's path to
economic growth without the constraints of
democratic institutions - the "Beijing consensus".
But it would be a more capricious and dangerous
place. The "Washington consensus" in support of
free markets and free trade, meanwhile, faces
widespread criticism within Asia. Unlike radical
Islam, China can offer something attractive -
prosperity - so an ideological challenge will
enjoy greater longevity. If China attracts a
significant number of states in an alternative
camp, it could challenge the rules of the US-led
international system itself. History has not
ended.
There are other clear advantages in
international relations for China to move toward
the institutions of civil society. When public
policy is made in secret, inside the black box of
the Communist Party's Politburo Standing
Committee, China's long-term intentions are
hidden. Such secrecy, for example, only increases
the perception in other countries that China's
military growth is threatening.
The whole
concept of a civil society implies a public-policy
debate on defense issues that involves the whole
population. Such a debate takes place today among
informed citizens, legislators and policy makers
in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and
the United States, to name but a few of the truly
democratic nations that are civil societies.
Legislators in these countries routinely
conduct public oversight hearings exploring
options on defense policy, strategy and equipment
acquisition. Heads of military services and
defense ministers explain and justify policies in
response to voter concerns. These are
public-policy matters and not secrets to be kept
from citizens. The costs of military development,
acquisition and the component elements of these
costs in defense budgets are matters of public
record. Thus defense policy, and by inference
military intentions, are transparent.
This
is not the case with China. The US, and China's
neighbors, instead must watch what China is
acquiring, gather what intelligence they can, and
divine hidden intentions.
Civil society
and institutions have been part of American grand
strategy for decades. The US has a perfect
opportunity to advance its principles at an
institution this November. During his visit to
China this month, President George W Bush should
make a clear case for civil society and its role
in peace and stability in East Asia.
Nations that believe in the principles of
open, accountable and transparent government
should encourage China to move toward a civil
society. Such a change would respond to the values
and principles these nations live by, and would
also reduce apprehension that there are secret
threats behind China's policies.
Larry Wortzel is Visiting
Fellow, The Heritage Foundation. Devin
Stewart is Fellow, Office of the Japan Chair,
Center for Strategic and International
Studies.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
